Ron Paul Explains Why "They" Hate Peace

The most succinct statement about how governments get their people to support war came from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials after World War II:

Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

It is rather frightening that a convicted Nazi war criminal latched onto an eternal truth!

It should be harder to promote war, especially when there are so many regrets in the end. In the last 60 years, the American people have had little say over decisions to wage war. We have allowed a succession of presidents and the United Nations to decide when and if we go to war, without an express congressional declaration as the Constitution mandates.

Since 1945, our country has been involved in over 70 active or covert foreign engagements. On numerous occasions we have provided weapons and funds to both sides in a conflict. It is not unusual for our so-called allies to turn on us and use these weapons against American troops. In recent decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us? The endless costs resulting from our foolish policies, in human lives, injuries, tax dollars, inflation, and deficits, will burden generations to come. For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this.

First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders. This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual. Switzerland is an example of a nation that stands strongly prepared to defend herself, yet refuses to send troops abroad looking for trouble.

Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.

The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight.

Some believe economic sanctions and blockades are acceptable alternatives to invasion and occupation. But these too are acts of war, and those on the receiving end rarely capitulate to the pressure. More likely they remain bitter enemies, and resort to terrorism when unable to confront us in a conventional military fashion.

Inflation, sanctions, and military threats all distort international trade and hurt average people in all countries involved, while usually not really hurting the targeted dictators themselves. Our bellicose approach encourages protectionism, authoritarianism, militant nationalism, and go-it-alone isolationism. Our government preaches free trade and commerce, yet condemns those who want any restraints on the use of our military worldwide. We refuse to see how isolated we have become. Our loyal allies are few, and while the UN does our bidding only when we buy the votes we need, our enemies multiply. A billion Muslims around the world now see the US as a pariah.

Our military is more often used to protect private capital overseas, such as oil and natural resources, than it is to protect our own borders. Protecting ourselves from real outside threats is no longer the focus of defense policy, as globalists become more influential inside and outside our government.

The weapons industry never actually advocates killing to enhance its profits, but a policy of endless war and eternal enemies benefits it greatly. Some advocate cold war strategies, like those used against the Soviets, against the unnamed “terrorists.” It’s good for business!

Many neoconservatives are not bashful about this:

Thus, paradoxically, peace increases our peril, by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, and depriving us of some of our best leaders. The great Prussian general Helmuth von Moltke knew whereof he spoke when he wrote a friend, “Everlasting peace is a dream, not even a pleasant one; war is a necessary part of God’s arrangement of the world. ... Without war the world would deteriorate into materialism.” As usual, Machiavelli dots his i’s and crosses the t’s: it’s not just that peace undermines discipline and thereby gives the destructive vices greater sway. If we actually achieved peace, “Indolence would either make (the state) effeminate or shatter her unity; and two things together, or each by itself, would be the cause of her ruin ...” This is Machiavelli’s variation on a theme by Mitterrand: the absence of movement is the beginning of defeat. (Michael Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership)

Those like Ledeen who approvingly believe in “perpetual struggle”generally are globalists, uninterested in national sovereignty and borders. True national defense is of little concern to them. That’s why military basesare closed in the United States regardless of their strategic value, whileseveral new bases are built in the Persian Gulf, even though they provokeour enemies to declare jihad against us. The new Cold War justifies everything.

War, and the threat of war, are big government’s best friend. Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board — always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare/warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements and endless war.

Comment viewing options

> Our military is more often used to protect private capital overseas, such as oil and natural resources, than it is to protect our own borders.

You mean like the US war for oil playbook ( with UK and other Western European lackeys ) in Mideast since 1950's with Iran then Iraq, Libya, etc

In Taking Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel Reserves http://nyti.ms/1oAW0Uz and think Putin said enough of this because Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and other major oil companies have already explored the Black Sea, and some petroleum analysts say its potential may rival that of the North Sea. That rush, which began in the 1970s, lifted the economies of Britain, Norway and other European countries.

The endless list of US politicians who don a kippak/yarmulke while visiting ISR in their endless pilgramages to curry favor with 0.18% of the world's population and 1.8% of the US population is flat out disgusting. How many visit 'Mexico City' to pledge fealty to Hispanics? Thought so. Walt and Mearsheimer didn't go far enough.

Ron Paul took campaign money from oil/natgas companies, and Microsoft during the 2012 presidential "elections". They aren't exactly looking out for our interests, so why would Ron Paul accept donations from them? Though with this critique I will praise him on acquiring the vast majority of his funds from the people; which many politicians cannot claim.

We need to get the reset started, anyone named to date would simply prolong the time to the reset, Biden I believe would get us their the quickest, although Elizabeth Warren, or Cuomo also have a shot at getting us their quickly.

Any Rino, e.g. Jeb, Paul Ryan, Crusty, would likely need a major false flag, and a major overseas war........

"There is one situation, however, in which all of the well-established social structure evaporates: when a group of rhesus macaques confronts another one and monkey warfare begins. Rhesus macaques dislike strangers and will viciously attack their own image in a mirror, thinking it’s a stranger threatening them. When warfare begins, “Even a low-ranking rhesus loner becomes an instant patriot. Every drop of xenophobia in rhesus blood is transformed into fuel for battle,” Maestripieri wrote."

Patriotism, in and of iteself, is not necessarily a derogatory term. Really depends on how its intended. Typically it is linked to the state. From the Latin Patria, the more specifically used term would be "communis patria".. By nature, this idea is geared towards the state as the patriarch.

I prefer "Patria Sua" Literally Famillial Hearth, but intended as familly or local loyality.

Those banksters led by the Rothschilds and the rest of that infamous cabal who've usurped America since 1913 with their "Federal Reserve" have forced most Americans to suffer immense economic hardships; it both saddens and angers me what those Zionists have done to our America. I may die before I see their complete demise, but I know deep in my heart that they will be utterly exterminated for bringing so much misery to this planet.

This is why I am so conflicted whenever the national anthem is played:

I rise and place my hand over my heart, and while standing, I am reminded of all the covert and overt atrocities committed by the powers and people behind the flag. JFK, Vietnam, 9/11, the Fed...so many others. I think of the words "land of the free", and how hypocritical that phrase is now. I am nauseated by the patriotic symbols and shameless glorification of war and military dominance. The song ends, I sit down, and try not to cry or vomit.

One day I will decide to not stand as a protest to what has been done to my country.

The Rothschilds are not Zionists. They fought it tooth and nail, and finally had to off Hertzl and take over. They never wanted an 'Israel'. Read 'The Transfer Agreement', by Edwin Black, an author nominated for 10 Pulitzer Prizes. It's all there.

Not that 'real' Zionists don't have an agenda, but they're not willing to die for the NWO. Real Zionists just want to be left alone. Pretty much Jewish Libertarians.

Whether it's the NeoCons or Goering (difference?) the 'problem' they recognize is the problem for those psychopaths who seek to build and maintain an empire. This is not the problem of the common man unless one goes full retard as Hobbes opines in Leviathan:

"During the time men live without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in the condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man."

I'm ok with this thinking... so long as I'm the one everyone is in awe of.